← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2222/2015admittedallwdgrantedrule absolute

Dinesh S/O Kewalram Wadhai v. Deputy Director Of Education Nagpur And 3 Others

2016-03-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.N. Deshmukh2 pages

1803wp2219.15 & 2222.15 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2219 OF 2015 (Ms. Rekha d/o Kevalram Wadhai vs. Deputy Director of Education and others) AND WRIT PETITION NO.2222 OF 2015 (Dinesh s/o Kewalram Wadhai vs. Deputy Director of Education and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri Y.J. Maheshwari, Advocate for petitioners. Smt. A.R. Taiwade, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.

---------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 18, 2016 The petitioners, who have been duly approved on unaided classes, seek transfer/ absorption in aided School.

Adv. Maheshwari for petitioners points out that respondent no.4 Management has already sent a proposal way back in February 2014 for this purpose.

Smt. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader is relying upon reply-affidavit to urge that if suitable proposal in accordance with law is received, the same can be evaluated by respondent

1803wp2219.15 & 2222.15 2/2 nos.1 and 2.

Nobody appears for respondent nos.3 and 4 today. We find that Adv. A.R. Chutake has filed Vakalatnama for them prior to June 2015. Both respondents thereafter have not filed reply opposing the petitions.

In this situation, we direct respondent nos.3 and 4 to submit a suitable proposal after complying with necessary formalities in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from today. If such proposal is submitted by respondent nos.3 and 4, same shall be looked into by respondent no.1 within further period of four weeks.

All contentions of petitioners in the matters are kept open and respondent nos.3 and 4 shall not proceed to fill in the vacancies against which petitioners are seeking absorption from open market.

The writ petitions are thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE khj